Re: Lucis Trust and their Christian Saviour Democracy
Aug 16, 2008 08:51 PM
by Richard Semock
You might be misinterpreting the newsletter in this regard, what they
are saying is that without christianity there is no basis for a
democratic form of govt so the comparison between eastern & western
democracys is impossible because there is no eastern democracy unless
you consider Israel 'eastern'. Communist China does not make any
pretense at being a democracy, they have merely adopted capitalism to
show that it is more successful under the communist banner, beating
us at our own game so to speak. If they win at this fools game, they
get to keep Tibet, Sikkim, and Bootan.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> To all readers
> My views are:
> I just thought, that It might be a good idea to e-mail the latest
official online Newsletter from Lucis Trust.
> - My view is, that in this Newsletter - in the below - we witness a
clear tendency to support the view that a Western Democracy are
SUPERIOR to other kinds of democracies. This is being done while one
admits, that Religions and other factors have a strong tendency to
undermine a great number of democracies.
> My question is, how can a Western Democracy be said to be SUPERIOR
to other kinds of democracies and political systems, when it so clear
and visibly almost always is based on the Christian religious
worldview and outlook upon the world???
> There is a great tendency in the various Alice A. Bailey circles to
show ignorance about how much the Christian religion influences the
western democracies. And also a - huge non-compassionate - tendency
to ignore the Christian influence upon Lucis Trust themselves and
their promotion of the Alice A. Bailey books, with their heavy use of
Christian vocabulary and their - huge non-compassionate - deepfreeze
attitude towards mentioning anything Middle Eastern or Islamic - at
all - and even esoteric Sufi teachings.
> Any comments?
> >>>The Newsletter: 2008 #2 - The Meaning of Democracy <<<
> "Alice Bailey proposes that the universality of democracy is
humanity's response - inaccurate as yet - to the pure energy of Love,
and suggests that a true democracy will become possible "through a
right use of the systems of education and by a steady training of the
people to recognise the finer values, the more correct point of view,
the higher idealism, and the spirit of synthesis and of cooperative
unity." To move towards this true democracy, she indicates that what
is needed is a greater number of truly awakened people; and when this
is so, "we shall see a purification of the political field taking
place, and a cleansing of our processes of representation instituted,
as well as a more exacting accounting required from the people of
those whom they have chosen to put in authority. There must
eventually be a closer tie-up between the educational system, the
legal system and the government, but it will all be directed to an
effort to work out the best ideals of the thinkers of the day."(The
Externalisation of the Hierarchy pp. 52-3)1 When this is so, ".people
will not tolerate authoritarianism in any church, or totalitarianism
in any political system or government; they will not accept or permit
the rule of any body of men who undertake to tell them what they must
believe in order to be saved, or what government they must accept."
(op. cit. p.618)
> Although democracy appears in a wide variety of forms, there are
certain core features that most share. These are: that all who are
competent to decide on how they should be led must have a regular say
in how those leaders are chosen - hence a regular electoral cycle;
that the vote of every citizen, from the richest to the poorest,
should count the same in that process - hence the need for secret
ballots;2 and that every citizen is completely free to decide how
that vote should be cast, without intimidation or bribery - hence the
need for a non-politicised police force and army. In addition, every
citizen should have access to information about those who aspire to
lead them - so the media should be free to provide full and unbiased
coverage of all involved in an electoral process.
> Indeed, when most people think of democracy, what they really mean
is liberal democracy - i.e. the combination of democracy as a means
of selecting a government, with constitutional liberalism, namely,
the protection of an individual's autonomy and dignity against any
form of coercion, whether from the state, the church or society. Each
tends to reinforce the other, for a state can only be truly
democratic if its citizens are free, and can thus choose their rulers
freely; and these freedoms should be best guaranteed by rulers chosen
in this way. However, the commentator Fareed Zakaria notes that
democratic elections can bring to power rulers who suppress
freedoms.3 This he names 'illiberal democracy'.4 He also observes
that democracy is not a necessary condition for the existence of high
levels of constitutional liberalism. So, for example, a state might
have a fully independent judiciary (one of the main institutions that
guarantee constitutional liberalism), but the electorate might play
no part in its selection.
> In fact, this is one example of a more general suggestion that
Zakaria makes, namely that too much democracy may not be a good
thing. In a complex modern nation-state, the electorate is unlikely
to have sufficient knowledge to judge on the suitability of every
state official, particularly those in very specialised fields, and so
may choose to delegate this selection process to the leaders they
have elected. And in any case, voting directly on every body that
influences the conduct of politics in a democratic state is
impossible, as governments must also pay attention to the input of
leaders in business and religion, and, increasingly, to other non-
governmental organisations that have been set up by groups of
citizens concerned about specific issues. The degree of influence
that these 'special interest' groups have over the conduct of
government represents a challenge - too much, and it might be argued
that democracy is weakened to the point of oligarchy (the rule of
elites); too little, and the culture of justified challenge to
governmental excesses that characterises most democracies is
> In the articles which follow, we reflect on some of the issues that
arise when considering liberal democracy: what are the qualifications
of the democratic politician, and how did this role arise? Do the
citizens of democracies have special responsibilities to protect and
nurture them, and if so, what are these responsibilities? And what is
the deeper meaning of 'freedom'?
> There is perhaps a tendency in the West to regard democracy as a
panacea for the difficulties that any society faces as it attempts to
modernise. Yet if democracy represents a certain phase of national
consciousness, which can only be reached after other phases have been
explored, then it may be that the attempted imposition of democracy
on a nation which isn't psychologically ready for it would be counter-
productive. There are a number of supposed democracies around the
world that are plainly dysfunctional in various degrees. This is not
to suggest that individuals, groups and nations should not aspire to
conditions of increased freedom; but societies, like individuals, go
through an evolutionary process of maturing, and it would be naïve to
suggest that the Western model of democracy, arrived at through
centuries of struggle, could - or should - be simply transplanted
into countries with different histories and cultural norms. In this
sense, a fully democratic society has to be developed by a people
through experience. And just as no-one would claim that every
individual is now resonating strongly with the pure energy of Love,
the same claim would seem equally misguided with respect to nations.
Where does this leave a person of goodwill? With the difficult but
necessary task of investigating a little more deeply whenever it is
proposed that the solution to a country's ills is "more democracy".
The expansion of freedom must and should be supported at all times -
but the path of each nation to this exalted goal is unique, and no
nation can claim to have reached the end. Liberal democracy is not a
machine that can be cranked up whenever needed, but a subtle and
continuous negotiation between a people and their leaders. Reflection
on its deeper psychological dimensions may help make us more
circumspect about recommending it in all circumstances.
> 1. The Externalisation of the Hierarchy is available here.
> 2. Which should be auditable, explaining the mounting unease about
electronic voting with no paper trail.
> 3. Hitler, for example.
> 4. Fareed Zakaria, The Future of Freedom. W W Norton & Co, 2004. "
> Any comments?
> M. Sufilight
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application